Yes I know they didn't suffer and weren't really alive because they don't have organs, a circulatory system or a central nervous system. And unless you have evidence to support your claim then there would be enough space to replace the worlds meat supply.Dom Kebbell said:All of those things where alive, all of them, do you know for certain that they don't suffer? they also could not replace the entire worlds meat/fish/poultry supply, there isn't that much land to grow things on.
My point is the act of eating something cannot in and of it's self have a moral implication since eating of flesh can be done by things that can't even ask the question of morality. This applies to a lot of things, so we have to come to a consensus but one person cannot just brand it wrong and expect everyone else to agree.
Cat's are house pets, we feed them, they don't have to hunt anything.
Civilised humans are not the same as wild animals because we have the capability to understand how our actions can affect and change the things around us in both positive and negative ways. Animals are able to experience pain and fear so knowing this we are able to see and understand that it's not the morally right thing to do. Put yourself in their position, if an alien species took over the world and wanted to eat humans even though they had so many other alternatives for food we wouldn't like it.